Here is Nicephoras Gregoras's proposed adjustment to the paschalion. The information is taken from Petavius's Uranologion of 1630. All dates are in the Julian calendar. The numbering of the years of the 19-year cycle is according to the western count.

Petavius gives "April 23" here, but this seems to be a mistake, for no lunar calendar could behave in such a way.Even today your camp could do worse than to adopt Gregoras's adjustments. It would repair a little of your solar discrepancy, and about half of your lunar discrepancy.

Mor Ephrem is a nice guy. Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

I fail to see your point? That is not reasonable grounds to replace the word Pascha with easter.

You speak English. Easter is the English word for Pascha. This isn't complicated. Why do you replace "theos" with "God"? Or "ekklesia" with "church"?

The examples your trying to make, makes no sense to me. Pascha works just fine, no need to adopt the word pass over or to use easter.

« Last Edit: April 20, 2015, 09:32:30 PM by вєликаго »

Logged

St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Mor Ephrem is a nice guy. Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

I fail to see your point? That is not reasonable grounds to replace the word Pascha with easter.

You speak English. Easter is the English word for Pascha.

No. Both "Easter" and "Passover" are used in English for "Pascha" considering "Pascha" is used in the LXX in reference to the Passover event.

True, but why are some trying to dictate church tradition to include the word easter? The church should create its own English traditions out of its own traditions, to continue those said traditions in English, if they are going to use English. There is no reason to be restricted to anther churches local traditions. A church should hold to its own local traditions.

« Last Edit: April 20, 2015, 09:50:18 PM by вєликаго »

Logged

St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

I fail to see your point? That is not reasonable grounds to replace the word Pascha with easter.

You speak English. Easter is the English word for Pascha.

No. Both "Easter" and "Passover" are used in English for "Pascha" considering "Pascha" is used in the LXX in reference to the Passover event.

True, but why are some trying to dictate church tradition to include the word easter? The church should create its own English traditions out of its own traditions, to continue those said traditions in English, if they are going to use English. There is no reason to be restricted to anther churches local traditions. A church should hold to its own local traditions.

The Church already did -- as I said before, long before Slavic Christianity was a twinkle in St. Vladimir's eye ...

Logged

"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue

Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

I fail to see your point? That is not reasonable grounds to replace the word Pascha with easter.

You speak English. Easter is the English word for Pascha.

No. Both "Easter" and "Passover" are used in English for "Pascha" considering "Pascha" is used in the LXX in reference to the Passover event.

Yet the LXX is not in English.

Logged

"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue

Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

I fail to see your point? That is not reasonable grounds to replace the word Pascha with easter.

You speak English. Easter is the English word for Pascha.

No. Both "Easter" and "Passover" are used in English for "Pascha" considering "Pascha" is used in the LXX in reference to the Passover event.

True, but why are some trying to dictate church tradition to include the word easter? The church should create its own English traditions out of its own traditions, to continue those said traditions in English, if they are going to use English. There is no reason to be restricted to anther churches local traditions. A church should hold to its own local traditions.

The Church already did -- as I said before, long before Slavic Christianity was a twinkle in St. Vladimir's eye ...

My church never did, a local church that no longer exists did.

Logged

St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

I fail to see your point? That is not reasonable grounds to replace the word Pascha with easter.

You speak English. Easter is the English word for Pascha.

No. Both "Easter" and "Passover" are used in English for "Pascha" considering "Pascha" is used in the LXX in reference to the Passover event.

Yet the LXX is not in English.

Your point? The church does not have a tradition of strict adherence to local language, even if it does have a tradition of using it.

Logged

St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

I fail to see your point? That is not reasonable grounds to replace the word Pascha with easter.

You speak English. Easter is the English word for Pascha.

No. Both "Easter" and "Passover" are used in English for "Pascha" considering "Pascha" is used in the LXX in reference to the Passover event.

True, but why are some trying to dictate church tradition to include the word easter? The church should create its own English traditions out of its own traditions, to continue those said traditions in English, if they are going to use English. There is no reason to be restricted to anther churches local traditions. A church should hold to its own local traditions.

The Church already did -- as I said before, long before Slavic Christianity was a twinkle in St. Vladimir's eye ...

My church never did, a local church that no longer exists did.

Granted, altho I do not think that Old Believer's choices in English is the topic of the thread.

Logged

"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue

Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

I fail to see your point? That is not reasonable grounds to replace the word Pascha with easter.

You speak English. Easter is the English word for Pascha.

No. Both "Easter" and "Passover" are used in English for "Pascha" considering "Pascha" is used in the LXX in reference to the Passover event.

True, but why are some trying to dictate church tradition to include the word easter? The church should create its own English traditions out of its own traditions, to continue those said traditions in English, if they are going to use English. There is no reason to be restricted to anther churches local traditions. A church should hold to its own local traditions.

The Church already did -- as I said before, long before Slavic Christianity was a twinkle in St. Vladimir's eye ...

My church never did, a local church that no longer exists did.

Granted, altho I do not think that Old Believer's choices in English is the topic of the thread.

the example I used, is valid for many other churches, the Greeks, the Nikonian Russians, the Serbs, or I imagine it is.

Logged

St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

I fail to see your point? That is not reasonable grounds to replace the word Pascha with easter.

You speak English. Easter is the English word for Pascha.

No. Both "Easter" and "Passover" are used in English for "Pascha" considering "Pascha" is used in the LXX in reference to the Passover event.

Yet the LXX is not in English.

Your point? The church does not have a tradition of strict adherence to local language, even if it does have a tradition of using it.

My point is that what the word is in Greek is not the question. Simply, there is a very ancient practice in England, Germany, and some other parts with a similar linguistic background to refer to πάσχα the ritual of the Jews as Passover and πάσχα the Resurrection as Easter. And for that matter this is reflected in the traditional translations of the Holy Bible into these tongues.

« Last Edit: April 20, 2015, 10:40:11 PM by Porter ODoran »

Logged

"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue

Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

I fail to see your point? That is not reasonable grounds to replace the word Pascha with easter.

You speak English. Easter is the English word for Pascha.

No. Both "Easter" and "Passover" are used in English for "Pascha" considering "Pascha" is used in the LXX in reference to the Passover event.

Yet the LXX is not in English.

Your point? The church does not have a tradition of strict adherence to local language, even if it does have a tradition of using it.

My point is that we know what the word is in Greek already. There is a very ancient practice in England, Germany, and some other parts with a similar linguistic background to refer to 'Paskha' the ritual of the Jews as Passover and 'Paskha' the Resurrection as 'Easter.' This is even reflected in the traditional translations of the Holy Bible into these tongues.

There is no need to adopt the local traditions of long dead local churches. I think its best to avoid them.

« Last Edit: April 20, 2015, 10:39:56 PM by вєликаго »

Logged

St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Mor Ephrem is a nice guy. Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

Here is Nicephoras Gregoras's proposed adjustment to the paschalion. The information is taken from Petavius's Uranologion of 1630. All dates are in the Julian calendar. The numbering of the years of the 19-year cycle is according to the western count.

Petavius gives "April 23" here, but this seems to be a mistake, for no lunar calendar could behave in such a way.Even today your camp could do worse than to adopt Gregoras's adjustments. It would repair a little of your solar discrepancy, and about half of your lunar discrepancy.

I love how you carry on your own monolog in the midst of everything else. It's quite charming, really.

And I remember reading that Nicephoras' proposals were reviewed and rejected at the time, even though they had nothing to do with the Pope or Papism. It's almost as if for centuries the Church didn't see astronomical accuracy as the most important aspect of the liturgical calendar...

Insisting on saying "Pascha" rather than "Easter" strikes me as analogous to insisting that we "write" icons rather than paint them. The point is, when I say "Easter", you know perfectly well what I mean, or if I need to clarify I can say "Orthodox Easter" as opposed to "Western Easter". I think you could even make a good case that "Easter" is a spiritually healthy appropriation and sanctification of a pagan name, just as our calendar is an appropriation and sanctification of originally non-Christian (pagan and Jewish) systems of keeping time.

It is interesting, though, how English (and German) ended up using the pagan name for the feast, while even other Germanic cultures (e.g. Scandinavians) used the Hebraic Pascha (e.g. Danish "Paaske").

Etymologically, the name "Easter" is also appropriate because it is derived from an old root meaning "dawn". Christ is our Dawn, after all.

I disagree, there really is no need for all that, Pascha is the correct word, easter is not.

Considering "Easter" has been used by the Germanic-speaking Church since perhaps the late 300s -- which, by the way, is several centuries earlier than the conversion of the Slavs -- I don't think there's basis for criticism.

Are you a member of the german speaking church?

He said "Germanic". Such as the language you're currently using.

I'm not part of a Germanic church. Therefore why would I use or adopt Germanic church traditions?

You are speaking a Germanic language, therefore you should have no problem using Germanic words.

Insisting on saying "Pascha" rather than "Easter" strikes me as analogous to insisting that we "write" icons rather than paint them. The point is, when I say "Easter", you know perfectly well what I mean, or if I need to clarify I can say "Orthodox Easter" as opposed to "Western Easter". I think you could even make a good case that "Easter" is a spiritually healthy appropriation and sanctification of a pagan name, just as our calendar is an appropriation and sanctification of originally non-Christian (pagan and Jewish) systems of keeping time.

It is interesting, though, how English (and German) ended up using the pagan name for the feast, while even other Germanic cultures (e.g. Scandinavians) used the Hebraic Pascha (e.g. Danish "Paaske").

Etymologically, the name "Easter" is also appropriate because it is derived from an old root meaning "dawn". Christ is our Dawn, after all.

I disagree, there really is no need for all that, Pascha is the correct word, easter is not.

Considering "Easter" has been used by the Germanic-speaking Church since perhaps the late 300s -- which, by the way, is several centuries earlier than the conversion of the Slavs -- I don't think there's basis for criticism.

Are you a member of the german speaking church?

He said "Germanic". Such as the language you're currently using.

I'm not part of a Germanic church. Therefore why would I use or adopt Germanic church traditions?

You are speaking a Germanic language, therefore you should have no problem using Germanic words.

Why would I adopt the Germanic word for Pascha?

Nobody's asking you to. Just don't insist that everyone follow you.

Nope, I never insist that. I do, however, strongly suggest that people follow Christ, Jesus. The Old Believers are His Church.

« Last Edit: April 21, 2015, 03:37:51 PM by вєликаго »

Logged

St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Mor Ephrem is a nice guy. Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

And I remember reading that Nicephoras' proposals were reviewed and rejected at the time, even though they had nothing to do with the Pope or Papism. It's almost as if for centuries the Church didn't see astronomical accuracy as the most important aspect of the liturgical calendar.

Gregoras's proposals were not rejected on doctrinal grounds, merely on practical ones: Gregoras, Byzantine History 8.13.3.

Astronomical accuracy was important to the 3rd-4th century fathers who developed the paschalion.

And I remember reading that Nicephoras' proposals were reviewed and rejected at the time, even though they had nothing to do with the Pope or Papism. It's almost as if for centuries the Church didn't see astronomical accuracy as the most important aspect of the liturgical calendar.

Gregoras's proposals were not rejected on doctrinal grounds, merely on practical ones: Gregoras, Byzantine History 8.13.3.

Astronomical accuracy was important to the 3rd-4th century fathers who developed the paschalion.

The point is that opposition to the Gregorian calendar is often put down to anti-PapistRomanCatholic bigotry, but with the rejection of Gregoras' proposals we have an example of reform being rejected for its own sake, and not merely through guilt by association.

The other point is that you can't point to evidence that the Church cared about astronomical accuracy since the 4th century. The obsession with astronomical accuracy strikes me as akin to other forms of renovationism. What other elements of 4th century practice are you willing to restore? Perhaps you want the Church to start enforcing the penitential canons as strictly as was customary in those days? Nobody would be receiving communion now if that were the case.

Jonathan, please remember to follow Forum Rules (third button from the left, along the top of the page). Please use the term "Roman Catholics" when referring to members of the Roman Catholic Church.

Specifically, "* EO/OO/RC Pejoratives -- Please do not use the following terms in your discussions as they are considered to be pejorative by other members of this forum: Uniate: Use Eastern Catholic (or their appropriate official title). Monophysite: Please use Oriental Orthodox or Non-Chalcedonian. Obviously, if you are discussing these terms in their true and historical sense then there is no problem using the term. What is being rejected is using this as a label to counter other members of the forum. As always, this does not imply that the board takes a position itself on these positions; this is merely a request to use civilized terminology & academic discussion standards in dialog on this forum."

Any further Rules violations will result in a warning. Thank you. LizaSymonenko - Global Moderator

And I remember reading that Nicephoras' proposals were reviewed and rejected at the time, even though they had nothing to do with the Pope or Papism. It's almost as if for centuries the Church didn't see astronomical accuracy as the most important aspect of the liturgical calendar.

Gregoras's proposals were not rejected on doctrinal grounds, merely on practical ones: Gregoras, Byzantine History 8.13.3.

Astronomical accuracy was important to the 3rd-4th century fathers who developed the paschalion.

The point is that opposition to the Gregorian calendar is often put down to anti-Papist bigotry, but with the rejection of Gregoras' proposals we have an example of reform being rejected for its own sake, and not merely through guilt by association.

But it was not rejected "for its own sake", i.e. on the grounds that calendar reform is inherently wicked. The Emperor thought that news of the correction could not be easily transmitted to the whole empire.

But it was not rejected "for its own sake", i.e. on the grounds that calendar reform is inherently wicked. The Emperor thought that news of the correction could not be easily transmitted to the whole empire.

Fair enough, but it does sound like maintaining church unity was seen as important enough that reform of just part of the church would be worse than no reform at all. I think that's an important lesson for today.

Quote

Gregoras, in the 14th century, cared about astronomical accuracy. Isn't he part of the church?

The Church is not just any individual. Gregoras had a right to propose reform, but the Church was under no obligation to follow his proposal and didn't.

Quote

If many things have changed since the 4th century, why can't the calendar be changed now?

What would be the point? Astronomical accuracy is all very well, but it's not worth sacrificing unity for it. Plus, in the way it has actually been carried out, it is clear to me at any rate that it was part of a larger move to unite the Orthodox church with heterodox bodies.

t is clear to me at any rate that [calendar reform] was part of a larger move to unite the Orthodox church with heterodox bodies.

Relax. We adopted the Gregorian calendar in the 1750's, and we are still far from any reunion with the Papists Roman Catholics.

Mockingbird, please remember to follow Forum Rules (third button from the left, along the top of the page). Please use the term "Roman Catholics" when referring to members of the Roman Catholic Church.

Specifically, "* EO/OO/RC Pejoratives -- Please do not use the following terms in your discussions as they are considered to be pejorative by other members of this forum: Uniate: Use Eastern Catholic (or their appropriate official title). Monophysite: Please use Oriental Orthodox or Non-Chalcedonian. Obviously, if you are discussing these terms in their true and historical sense then there is no problem using the term. What is being rejected is using this as a label to counter other members of the forum. As always, this does not imply that the board takes a position itself on these positions; this is merely a request to use civilized terminology & academic discussion standards in dialog on this forum."

Any further Rules violations will result in a warning. Thank you. LizaSymonenko - Global Moderator

And I remember reading that Nicephoras' proposals were reviewed and rejected at the time, even though they had nothing to do with the Pope or Papism. It's almost as if for centuries the Church didn't see astronomical accuracy as the most important aspect of the liturgical calendar.

Gregoras's proposals were not rejected on doctrinal grounds, merely on practical ones: Gregoras, Byzantine History 8.13.3.

Astronomical accuracy was important to the 3rd-4th century fathers who developed the paschalion.

The point is that opposition to the Gregorian calendar is often put down to anti-Papist bigotry, but with the rejection of Gregoras' proposals we have an example of reform being rejected for its own sake, and not merely through guilt by association.

The other point is that you can't point to evidence that the Church cared about astronomical accuracy since the 4th century. The obsession with astronomical accuracy strikes me as akin to other forms of renovationism. What other elements of 4th century practice are you willing to restore? Perhaps you want the Church to start enforcing the penitential canons as strictly as was customary in those days? Nobody would be receiving communion now if that were the case.

I'll yet to see evidence that the penitential canons were customarily enforced as strictly in those days as imagined in monastic nostalgia.

The Fathers stated that they picked Alexandria's comptus because of the accuracy of its astronomers and observatories.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

And I remember reading that Nicephoras' proposals were reviewed and rejected at the time, even though they had nothing to do with the Pope or Papism. It's almost as if for centuries the Church didn't see astronomical accuracy as the most important aspect of the liturgical calendar.

Gregoras's proposals were not rejected on doctrinal grounds, merely on practical ones: Gregoras, Byzantine History 8.13.3.

Astronomical accuracy was important to the 3rd-4th century fathers who developed the paschalion.

The point is that opposition to the Gregorian calendar is often put down to anti-Papist bigotry, but with the rejection of Gregoras' proposals we have an example of reform being rejected for its own sake, and not merely through guilt by association.

The other point is that you can't point to evidence that the Church cared about astronomical accuracy since the 4th century. The obsession with astronomical accuracy strikes me as akin to other forms of renovationism. What other elements of 4th century practice are you willing to restore? Perhaps you want the Church to start enforcing the penitential canons as strictly as was customary in those days? Nobody would be receiving communion now if that were the case.

I'll yet to see evidence that the penitential canons were customarily enforced as strictly in those days as imagined in monastic nostalgia.

The Fathers stated that they picked Alexandria's comptus because of the accuracy of its astronomers and observatories.

Would those Fathers have approved of the way the reform was pushed through at the cost of Church unity? I doubt it. But you may have a point about enforcement of the canons. I don't think you're being fair to monks, though. It's more an issue of hyperdoxy, which afflicts laymen and monks alike.

And I remember reading that Nicephoras' proposals were reviewed and rejected at the time, even though they had nothing to do with the Pope or Papism. It's almost as if for centuries the Church didn't see astronomical accuracy as the most important aspect of the liturgical calendar.

Gregoras's proposals were not rejected on doctrinal grounds, merely on practical ones: Gregoras, Byzantine History 8.13.3.

Astronomical accuracy was important to the 3rd-4th century fathers who developed the paschalion.

The point is that opposition to the Gregorian calendar is often put down to anti-Papist bigotry, but with the rejection of Gregoras' proposals we have an example of reform being rejected for its own sake, and not merely through guilt by association.

The other point is that you can't point to evidence that the Church cared about astronomical accuracy since the 4th century. The obsession with astronomical accuracy strikes me as akin to other forms of renovationism.

There's a difference between caring about something and being obsessed with it.

And I remember reading that Nicephoras' proposals were reviewed and rejected at the time, even though they had nothing to do with the Pope or Papism. It's almost as if for centuries the Church didn't see astronomical accuracy as the most important aspect of the liturgical calendar.

Gregoras's proposals were not rejected on doctrinal grounds, merely on practical ones: Gregoras, Byzantine History 8.13.3.

Astronomical accuracy was important to the 3rd-4th century fathers who developed the paschalion.

The point is that opposition to the Gregorian calendar is often put down to anti-Papist bigotry, but with the rejection of Gregoras' proposals we have an example of reform being rejected for its own sake, and not merely through guilt by association.

The other point is that you can't point to evidence that the Church cared about astronomical accuracy since the 4th century. The obsession with astronomical accuracy strikes me as akin to other forms of renovationism.

There's a difference between caring about something and being obsessed with it.

Indeed. I would say that someone who cares enough about accuracy to come up with decent and well-thought-through reform proposals is "caring". Someone who forces reform on his local church, at the cost of causing a schism, is "obsessed".

But it was not rejected "for its own sake", i.e. on the grounds that calendar reform is inherently wicked. The Emperor thought that news of the correction could not be easily transmitted to the whole empire.

Fair enough, but it does sound like maintaining church unity was seen as important enough that reform of just part of the church would be worse than no reform at all. I think that's an important lesson for today.

Quote

Gregoras, in the 14th century, cared about astronomical accuracy. Isn't he part of the church?

The Church is not just any individual. Gregoras had a right to propose reform, but the Church was under no obligation to follow his proposal and didn't.

But it was not rejected "for its own sake", i.e. on the grounds that calendar reform is inherently wicked. The Emperor thought that news of the correction could not be easily transmitted to the whole empire.

Fair enough, but it does sound like maintaining church unity was seen as important enough that reform of just part of the church would be worse than no reform at all. I think that's an important lesson for today.

Quote

Gregoras, in the 14th century, cared about astronomical accuracy. Isn't he part of the church?

The Church is not just any individual. Gregoras had a right to propose reform, but the Church was under no obligation to follow his proposal and didn't.

And I remember reading that Nicephoras' proposals were reviewed and rejected at the time, even though they had nothing to do with the Pope or Papism. It's almost as if for centuries the Church didn't see astronomical accuracy as the most important aspect of the liturgical calendar.

Gregoras's proposals were not rejected on doctrinal grounds, merely on practical ones: Gregoras, Byzantine History 8.13.3.

Astronomical accuracy was important to the 3rd-4th century fathers who developed the paschalion.

The point is that opposition to the Gregorian calendar is often put down to anti-Papist bigotry, but with the rejection of Gregoras' proposals we have an example of reform being rejected for its own sake, and not merely through guilt by association.

The other point is that you can't point to evidence that the Church cared about astronomical accuracy since the 4th century. The obsession with astronomical accuracy strikes me as akin to other forms of renovationism.

There's a difference between caring about something and being obsessed with it.

Indeed. I would say that someone who cares enough about accuracy to come up with decent and well-thought-through reform proposals is "caring". Someone who forces reform on his local church, at the cost of causing a schism, is "obsessed".

Oh, I don't know about that. It seems that you're so obsessed with this subject as to keep coming back to this thread to defend the Old Calendar.